Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The case is Murray v UBS Securities LLC et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-4202. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis) Show comments
From 2007 to 2008, Trevor Murray worked for UBS, a multinational investment bank and financial services company.In 2011, he was recruited back to UBS. When he returned, Murray was responsible for researching UBS's commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), and reporting his findings to the firm's current and prospective customers.
Murray v. Giarratano , 492 U.S. 1 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that capital defendants do not have a constitutional right to counsel in state collateral postconviction proceedings.
Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern " independent source doctrine " exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as ...
Murray owned roughly 300,000 shares of Holding Inc. in April 2023, according to a D. A former technology executive has pleaded guilty to a single count of fraud involving a scheme to artificially ...
Format links to a number of common caselaw sources Template parameters [Edit template data] Parameter Description Type Status Case case name of legal case, possibly including wikitext citation Example ''Brown v. Board of Education'', {{ussc|347|483|1954|el=no}} String required Cornell LII link cornell URL on Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School Example https://www.law.cornell.edu ...
Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] EWCA Civ 963 is an English contract law case, concerning the termination of an agreement and penalty clauses. Facts An employment ...
Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The issue adjudicated was whether a distress warrant, issued pursuant to statute, was valid and constitutional.